So wait, NDSS accepted and published an entire new VPN protocol with no security analysis?
-
-
Replying to @matthew_d_green
wait, crypto conferences accept new protocols with no working implementation? and with security proofs covering only a small part of the attack surface, with no formal verification :)
2 replies 4 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @veorq @matthew_d_green
when the Signal protocol came out, unproved and unverified, but Moxie+Trevor-designed, nobody asked for proofs, we didn't even have specs :)
2 replies 3 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @veorq
But now that we do have definitions, would you consider it ideal for people to still be making things up as they go?
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
-
They published a brand new TLS-like protocol in a top academic security conference without a proof of security.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Someone else wrote a proof of security in a strong (but standard) model, however they had to alter the protocol slightly to make it work.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @matthew_d_green @veorq
Did you read Jason’s summary on his list of what the paper represents, or the Wireguard paper that provides its implementation rationale? It’s pretty compelling.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/wireguard/2018-January/002333.html … Here's that mentioned post, for the casual reader here.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.